Roland, I'm right there with you on the point that the industry has been absolutely HORRIBLE about effecting change in this manner. They're absolutely causing this to happen to themselves. People want product, and if that product doesn't exist (especially because it's forced NOT to), they're going to create work-arounds, legal or otherwise. And yes, digital distribution is most definitely cheaper. That's fact. There is also price gouging in the digital marketplace. Paying $14 for a classic book, especially one that's been around since the 1930s is absolutely ridiculous, and yet that's what's happening. It's also part of the reason for the lawsuits for this very thing against publishing's "Big Six".

There is absolutely bitterness over this, and that leads to more piracy, because hey, screw the man for forcing it on us. It's somehow seen as a viable strategy, though, which completely baffles me. Actually, no, it doesn't completely baffle me. It's a result of short-sighted business strategy to milk everyone for as much as they can, with piss-all thought to the long term health of the industry as a whole. We're currently seeing the book industry construct an almost exact replica of the horrible, predatory contract practices the music industry saw a decade ago. Here is the link to a number of posts by SFWA President John Scalzi's thoughts on that, starting with the post from March 6. They're well worth a read. A little off the subject of piracy to be sure, but they do paint a disturbing visual that indicates where big publishing may be heading. Hint: movies and music a decade ago. And that affects piracy. A lot.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

Sailor, remember when Radiohead said "KMA" to the industry, and released their new album on their website with a pay-what-you-think-it's-worth motto, and you could download it without paying anything if you wanted to?

Oh, it looks like it was a success, and that while plenty of people still downloaded it for free, many paid; and it brought the band more money than its prior album. They accomplished that by offering it for free, merely asking people to pay what they felt it was worth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbow ... t_placings

RolandDeschain wrote:Sailor, remember when Radiohead said "KMA" to the industry, and released their new album on their website with a pay-what-you-think-it's-worth motto, and you could download it without paying anything if you wanted to?

Oh, it looks like it was a success, and that while plenty of people still downloaded it for free, many paid; and it brought the band more money than its prior album. They accomplished that by offering it for free, merely asking people to pay what they felt it was worth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbow ... t_placings

Yeah, you can go to hell now, RIAA/MPAA.

Not a fan of Radiohead, but this was genius on their part. I really thought that after their success on this that more bands would do it, sadly they haven't though.

DTexHawk wrote:Ultimately, we are all individuals with different opinions on right/wrong and we all draw our individual lines in different places.

...And some of us are fine with this idea, and don't push it onto others. Others, like you, try to put us in a time-out chair, pushing your perception of morals onto us. I don't tell you what you should or should not do, why do you feel the need to lecture us on your definition of stealing/pirating?

So can I quote you whenever you reply on a thread that someone is doing something that is wrong/illegal?

“A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

Once music or video or data is created it exists and nobody has the right to control whether somebody is allowed to listen to it or watch it or use it or not. Good, reasonable, honest people know when & how to contribute monetarily to the people who put in the work to create it. It's the 21st century and that's how things work now. These are the new morals because the old ones don't fit anymore. There will always be people who misuse or take advantage of the system, just like there always has been.

Zebulon Dak wrote:Once music or video or data is created it exists and nobody has the right to control whether somebody is allowed to listen to it or watch it or use it or not. Good, reasonable, honest people know when & how to contribute monetarily to the people who put in the work to create it. It's the 21st century and that's how things work now. These are the new morals because the old ones don't fit anymore. There will always be people who misuse or take advantage of the system, just like there always has been.

So any politician can use what ever music they want in their campaign and the artist/songwriter can't get them to stop.

Good to know!

Love these new morals!

“A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

Zebulon Dak wrote:Once music or video or data is created it exists and nobody has the right to control whether somebody is allowed to listen to it or watch it or use it or not. Good, reasonable, honest people know when & how to contribute monetarily to the people who put in the work to create it. It's the 21st century and that's how things work now. These are the new morals because the old ones don't fit anymore. There will always be people who misuse or take advantage of the system, just like there always has been.

So any politician can use what ever music they want in their campaign and the artist/songwriter can't get them to stop.

Good to know!

Love these new morals!

No. It's different if someone is using it for personal gain. Just like if someone is selling bootleg movies and music from the trunk of their car.

Zebulon Dak wrote:Once music or video or data is created it exists and nobody has the right to control whether somebody is allowed to listen to it or watch it or use it or not. Good, reasonable, honest people know when & how to contribute monetarily to the people who put in the work to create it. It's the 21st century and that's how things work now. These are the new morals because the old ones don't fit anymore. There will always be people who misuse or take advantage of the system, just like there always has been.

So any politician can use what ever music they want in their campaign and the artist/songwriter can't get them to stop.

Good to know!

Love these new morals!

No. It's different if someone is using it for personal gain. Just like if someone is selling bootleg movies and music from the trunk of their car.

Right. Public broadcast, advertisement, selling something that doesn't belong to you are different situations.

Zebulon Dak wrote:Once music or video or data is created it exists and nobody has the right to control whether somebody is allowed to listen to it or watch it or use it or not. Good, reasonable, honest people know when & how to contribute monetarily to the people who put in the work to create it. It's the 21st century and that's how things work now. These are the new morals because the old ones don't fit anymore. There will always be people who misuse or take advantage of the system, just like there always has been.

So any politician can use what ever music they want in their campaign and the artist/songwriter can't get them to stop.

Back on the original conversation in my opinion anyone that believes pirating music doesn't affect the sales/profits to the artist of same should look into the vast lake areas being sold in Utah/Arizona.

The Radish wrote:Back on the original conversation in my opinion anyone that believes pirating music doesn't affect the sales/profits to the artist of same should look into the vast lake areas being sold in Utah/Arizona.

You could get a bargain on beach front to build on.

Well, you could always check out the study.

Seriously though, the digital age changed the music industry and it did affect record sales. But you have to look at the current state of the industry and accept that it's not going to get back to the way things were. It's important that musicians and record companies stay up to date if they want to continue making money, because there's still plenty of it out there to be had. And the people who are doing it right are still making lots and lots of it.

The Radish wrote:Back on the original conversation in my opinion anyone that believes pirating music doesn't affect the sales/profits to the artist of same should look into the vast lake areas being sold in Utah/Arizona.

You could get a bargain on beach front to build on.

Of course it affects the sales and profits. The question is, does the massive extra exposure lead to even more profits than they would have had without the pirating and its huge extra exposure, or not? Serious statement/question.

The Radish wrote:Back on the original conversation in my opinion anyone that believes pirating music doesn't affect the sales/profits to the artist of same should look into the vast lake areas being sold in Utah/Arizona.

You could get a bargain on beach front to build on.

Well, you could always check out the study.

Seriously though, the digital age changed the music industry and it did affect record sales. But you have to look at the current state of the industry and accept that it's not going to get back to the way things were. It's important that musicians and record companies stay up to date if they want to continue making money, because there's still plenty of it out there to be had. And the people who are doing it right are still making lots and lots of it.

There are also a number of examples from authors who put their work out for free and challenged readers to "steal" their books. As I recall, they all recorded huge up-ticks in sales afterward. Like I said earlier, the number one killer of artists and authors is not piracy, but rather obscurity.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez